Please provide an explanation why you don't need a "real investigation" to determine the cause of this structure.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkr0A9633Q&feature=related
How about this? Do you need a "real investigation" to determine what caused this structure to collaspe?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o
Hmmm, first one is really, really loud while the second one is not nearly as loud.
First one follows months of prepartation during the last stages of which explosives were actually loaded into the structure whereas in the second case no explosives were ever noticed but a fire had been burning during the day that the building did collapse(completely).
Now back to the original thread,,,,,,,,
An underground fire involving the building contents can explain the hot spots moving around during the weeks that the underground volume was so hot.
An underground fire involving the building contents can explain the length of time that the underground was hot.
If HI has another explaination for these two aspects then perhaps he'd care to let us know what it is.
Back to the thread derail,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the TM, it seems to me, ALWAYS tries to take each aspect of the insults to the building in isolation.
The towers had large holes blown in them and a significant removal of their structural integrity on the impact floors by the impact of the aircraft.
-The TM then states that the buildings withstood this insult and indeed they did.
The towers then had thousands of gallons of jet fuel dumped into the very same impact floors and that fuel ignited.
-The TM then states that the jet fuel burned off in a matter of seconds or minutes and would not have been enough to heat the steel to a temp such that it would loose much strength, and indeed this is true.
The impact and resultant shredding of the aircraft plus the tossing about of building contents abraded the spray on fire insulation and drywall firestop from a significant amount of the steel structural members.
-The TM attempts to minimize this aspect or ignore it completely. (for instance:
Originally Posted by RedIbis
"No, I'm alluding to the preposterous NIST claim that the removal of fireproofing in the towers accelerated the steel temp.")
The building contents were ignited by the jet fuel fire and continued to burn right up to collapse and spread to virtually all floors above the impact zone.
- The TM then states that structural steel buildings have never suffered a gloabal collapse due to fire, which is arguable but has some merit.
HOWEVER, the TM simply cannot seem to allow for the
combination of the loss of integrity due to initial impact, the loss of a significant amount of fire insulation on the structural steel, and the ignition of large area fires on several floors all at once. Furthermore the contribution of the long span, open area design meant that those long span trusses that tied the perimeter and core columns and supplied lateral support between those two vertical column systems were the weak point in relation to fire damage.
A further misunderstanding by many in the TM (if perhaps not by HI personally) is the claim that the perimeter columns did not support gravity loads. Of course they did, to even suggest they didn't belies a complete and utter lack of comprehension of physics. If the perimeter columns supported only the gravity load of the columns themselves, and none of the load from the floors, then the trusses would neccessarily be in cantilever action at their connection to the core, a situation that would be ridiculous to believe.
